Peters v. Pine Meadow Ranch Home Association

151 P.3d 962 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This appeal is about two similar cases. In 1965, F.E. and Mae P. Bates deeded a large tract of land in Summit County to 'Security Title Company' as 'Trustee.' Pine Meadow (D) seeks to levy fees against Peters (Ps) to maintain roadways and other improvements in subdivisions that were established on this tract of land and in which the Ps now own property. Ps brought these actions to have the CC&Rs declared invalid. the district court granted summary judgment to Ds, concluding that the CC&Rs were effective based on various legal and equitable principles. Ps appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's determinations that Ds had the authority as beneficial owners to impose the CC&Rs. Ps appealed. Counsel for Ps accuses the court of appeals panel of judicial misconduct. This accusation stems from the court of appeals' statement that W. Brent Jensen signed a plat on behalf of both Deseret and Security. The court of appeals erred in making this statement. In fact, W. Brent Jensen signed on behalf of Deseret, and Leo D. Jensen signed on behalf of Security. Ps' counsel accuses the court of appeals panel of intentionally fabricating evidence and contends that the error was motivated by some improper motive. Counsel offers no support for these accusations of impropriety beyond the mere fact that the error occurred. Counsel also accuses the court of appeals of misstating the holding in Capital Assets Financial Services v. Maxwell. The court of appeals did err in its interpretation of this case. Counsel contends that this error, too, was intentional and the product of an improper motive by the court of appeals. No support is offered for this accusation beyond the purported error itself.